Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Resisting ethics over-regulation in research into sexuality and relationships education: insights from an Australian study

  • Published:
The Australian Educational Researcher Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Complaints by educational researchers about problems with the human research ethics review process are not new. In this paper, we add to the growing body of literature critiquing contemporary ethics review processes. We outline the nature and extent of scrutiny our sexuality and relationships research project was subjected to during a drawn-out and acrimonious process of over-regulation by several ethics review panels. We provide concrete details of two ‘ethics exchanges’ that show how compromised the review process can become when ethics review ‘guidelines’ are interpreted, promoted and applied as universalised and invariant principles of ethical practice. We argue that these problems arise because ethics review boards (1) over-emphasise the vulnerability of young research participants and make exaggerated assessments of risk, (2) evaluate all research from a biomedical perspective that discounts research approaches that are based on different epistemologies, and (3) use bureaucratic and adversarial ways to resolve contested research ethics issues. The paper concludes with a call for ethics review boards to recognise and accept methodological diversity and plurality, and to acknowledge the inevitability and desirability of making in situ ethical decisions while using participatory methods in educational research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, L. (2005). ‘Say everything’: Exploring young people’s suggestions for improving sexuality education. Sex Education, 5(4), 389–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austen, L. (2009). The social construction of risk by young people. Health, Risk & Society, 11(5), 451–470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartholemaeus, C. (2016). Developmental discourses as a regime of truth in research with primary school students. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 29(7), 911–924.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bay-Cheng, L. Y. (2003). The trouble of teen sex: The construction of adolescent sexuality through school-based sexuality education. Sex Education: Sexuality, Society and Learning, 3(1), 61–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boden, R., Epstein, D., & Latimer, J. (2009). Accounting for ethos or programmes for conduct? The brave new world of research ethics committees. The Sociological Review, 57(4), 727–749.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckingham, D. (2000). After the death of childhood. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dingwall, R. (2016). The social costs of ethics regulation. In W. Van den Hoonard & A. Hamilton (Eds.), The ethics rupture: Exploring alternatives to formal research ethics review. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fielding, M. (2001). Students as radical agents of change. Journal of Educational Change, 2(2), 123–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, S. (2007). The language of the right: Sex education debates in South Australia. Sex Education, 7(3), 239–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillam, L., & Guillemin, M. (2018). Reflexivity: Overcoming mistrust between research ethics committees and researchers. In R. Iphofen & M. Tolich (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research ethics. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagen, P., Collin, P., Metcalf, A., Nicholas, M., Rahilly, K., & Swainston, N. (2012). Participatory design of evidence-based online youth mental health promotion, intervention and treatment. Melbourne: Young and Well Cooperative Research Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillier, L., & Harrison, L. (2004). Homophobia and the production of shame: Young people and same sex attraction. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 6(1), 79–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillier, L., Dempsey, D., Harrison, L., Beale, L., Matthews, L. & Rosenthal, D. A. (1998) Writing Themselves in: A national report on the sexuality, health, and well-being of same-sex attracted young people. National Centre in HIV Social Research, Program in Youth/General Population, Centre for the Study of Sexually Transmissible Diseases, La Trobe University, Melbourne.

  • Hillier, L., Turner, A., & Mitchell, A. (2005). Writing themselves in again—Six years on: The second national report on the sexuality, health and well being of same-sex attracted young people. Melbourne: Australian Research Centre in Health and Society, La Trobe University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirst, J. (2008). Developing sexual competence? Exploring strategies for the provision of effective sexualities and relationships education. Sex Education, 8(4), 399–413.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingham, R. (2005). ‘We didn’t cover that at school’: Education against pleasure or education for pleasure? Sex Education, 5(4), 375–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iphofen, R., & Tolich, M. (Eds.). (2018). The sage handbook of qualitative research ethics. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, B. (2000). Using video vignettes to evaluate children’s personal safety knowledge: Methodological and ethical issues. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24(6), 811–827.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, B. (2006). An evaluation of the trial implementation of the Sexual Health and Relationships Education (share) program 2003-2005. Report to Sexual Health information network and education SA.

  • Johnson, K. (2007) Researching with children: Exploring children's place(s) in their local primary school. Unpublished EdD thesis. Adelaide: University of South Australia.

  • Johnson, B. (2010). Maintaining professional ethics during a ‘moral panic’ over sex education: A case study. In A. Campbell & P. Broadhead (Eds.), Working with children and young people: Ethical debates and practices across disciplines and continents. London: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, B., & Down, B. (2012). Critically re-conceptualising early career teacher resilience. Discourse Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 34(5), 703–715.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. (2011). A sexuality education discourses framework: Conservative, liberal, critical, and postmodern. American Journal of Sexuality Education, 6(2), 133–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kubanyiova, M. (2008). Rethinking research ethics in contemporary applied linguistics: The tension between macroethical and microethical perspectives in situated research. The Modern Language Journal, 92(4), 503–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, R. (2016). Fieldwork double-bound in human research ethics reviews: Disciplinary competence, or regulatory compliance and the muting of disciplinary values. In W. Van den Hoonard & A. Hamilton (Eds.), The ethics rupture: Exploring alternatives to formal research ethics review. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenette, C., Botfield, J., Boydell, K., Haire, B., Newman, C., & Zwi, A. (2018). Beyond compliance checking: A situated approach to visual research ethics. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 15(2), 293–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., & Cook, J. (2017). Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “Post-Truth” era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 353–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay, J., Smith, A. & Rosenthal, D. (1997). Secondary students, HIV/AIDS and sexual health. Research Report, Centre for the study of Sexually Transmissable Diseases. Melbourne: Latrobe University.

  • Marzano, M. (2016). Uncomfortable truths, ethics, and qualitative research: Escaping the dominance of informed consent. In W. Van den Hoonard & A. Hamilton (Eds.), The ethics rupture: exploring alternatives to formal research ethics review. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAreavey, R., & Muir, J. (2011). Research ethics committees: Values and power in higher education. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(5), 391–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, C., Swartz, S., Kiragu, S., Walli, S., & Muhamed, M. (2012). Old enough to know: Consulting children on African sexualities. Cape Town, SA: Human Sciences Research Council Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, C.W. (1970/1959). The sociological imagination. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

  • Mitchell, A., Patrick, K, Heywood, W., Blackman, P., & Pitts, M. (2014). 5th national survey of australian secondary students and sexual health 2013, (ARCSHS Monograph Series No. 97), Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.

  • National Health and Medical Research Council (2007 & 2015). National statement on ethical conduct in human research. Retrieved September 9, 2017, from https://www.nhmrc.gov.au.

  • O’Neill, P. (2016). Assessing risk in psychological research. In W. Van den Hoonard & A. Hamilton (Eds.), The ethics rupture: Exploring alternatives to formal research ethics review. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ollis, D., Harrison, L., & Richardson, A. (2012). Building capacity in sexuality education: The Northern Bay college experience. Geelong: Deakin University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitt, P. (2014). ‘The project cannot be approved in its current form’: Feminist visual research meets the human research ethics committee. The Australian Educational Researcher, 41(3), 311–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prout, A. (2005). The future of childhood. London: Routledge Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, L. (2005). Handling qualitative data: A practical guide. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, K., Bansel, P., Denson, N., Ovenden, G., & Davies, C. (2013). Growing up queer: Issues facing young Australians who are gender variant and sexuality diverse. Melbourne: Young and Well Cooperative Research Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sikes, P. & Piper, H. (2010). Ethical research, academic freedom and the role of ethics committees and review procedures in educational research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 33(3), 205–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons, H., & Usher, R. (2000). Introduction: Ethics in the practice of research. In H. Simons & R. Usher (Eds.), Situated ethics in educational research. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A., Agius, P., Dyson, S., Mitchell, A., & Pitts, M. (2003). The national survey of secondary students and sexual health: Results of 3rd national survey of Australian secondary students, HIV/AIDS and sexual health. Melbourne: Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A., Agius. P., Mitchell. A., Barrett. C., Pitts. M. (2009). Secondary students and sexual health 2008, Monograph Series No. 70, Melbourne: Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health & Society, La Trobe University.

  • The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), The Australian Research Council and the Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee. (2007 & 2015). National statement on ethical conduct in human research. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

  • Thorogood, N. (2000). Sex education as disciplinary technique: Policy and practice in England and Wales. Sexualities, 3, 425–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Hoonaard, W. (2018). The vulnerability of vulnerability: Why social science researchers should abandon the doctrine of vulnerability. In R. Iphofen & M. Tolich (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research ethics. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Hoonard, W. (2013). The social and political contexts of the New Brunswick Declaration on research ethics, integrity, and governance: A commentary. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 8(2), 104–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Hoonard, W., & Hamilton, A. (2016). The ethics rupture summit in the context of current trends in research ethics review. In W. Van den Hoonard & A. Hamilton (Eds.), The ethics rupture: Exploring alternatives to formal research ethics review. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper is an outcome of the Engaging Young People in Sexuality Education project funded by the Australian Research Council (LP130100350). SHINE SA contributed funds and in-kind support to this project. The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect SHINE SA’s policies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia

    Bruce Johnson

  2. Deakin University, Geelong, Australia

    Lyn Harrison & Debbie Ollis

Authors
  1. Bruce Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lyn Harrison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Debbie Ollis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bruce Johnson.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Johnson, B., Harrison, L. & Ollis, D. Resisting ethics over-regulation in research into sexuality and relationships education: insights from an Australian study. Aust. Educ. Res. 47, 741–757 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-019-00373-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-019-00373-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation